[anti-sleep]

I'm not trying to make any point here, as I don't know nearly enough about stem cell research to try and get in an argument.

But the only argument I've heard against stem cell research is that some people see it as preventing an innocent child from being born. I can easily see why someone would have a moral objection to that, but why then do the same people not object to the innocent civilian casualties that are inevitable in every war? How does "10,000 Iraqi's so Saddam is out of power" differ from "1,000 unborn embryos so several terminal diseases are cured?" True, there is no guarantee that stem cell research will cure disease, but at the same time there is no guarantee that ousting Saddam is saving life in the end. Thoughts?

[MacGorilla]

Good questions that have no answers. On a side note, I side with the Celts who believed person didn't get their sould until the instant of birth.

[TETENAL]

I think a little bit earlier (but not with conception � a few cells are not yet a human).

Abortions are not good both because a human doesn't get the chance to become and because it's a trauma for the mother to be. Therefore the number of abortions should be at a minimum. Nevertheless there will always be abortions. Making them absolutely illegal hasn't proved to be a good mean to reduce abortions (and increases that trauma factor).

So then when we have to deal with a certain amount of abortions anyway (and redundant in-vitro embryos), why not do stem cell research?

[ebuddy]

But the only argument I've heard against stem cell research is that some people see it as preventing an innocent child from being born.

That's unfortunate, as there are good reasons why the insistance on using embryonic stem cells hampers research into the use of umbilical stem cells. The UK is gaining excellent ground in this area and may have happened across a wealth of cells here to make the embryonic studies unnecessary. It's ironic to me that we have people trying to spare the life of the lab mouse and other people trying to use harvested human embryos.

I can easily see why someone would have a moral objection to that, but why then do the same people not object to the innocent civilian casualties that are inevitable in every war? How does "10,000 Iraqi's so Saddam is out of power" differ from "1,000 unborn embryos so several terminal diseases are cured?" True, there is no guarantee that stem cell research will cure disease, but at the same time there is no guarantee that ousting Saddam is saving life in the end. Thoughts?

You're not really comparing collateral damage in war to stem cell research are you? Collateral damage is not planned destruction for an end goal. Your supposition; "10,000 Iraqi's so Saddam is out of power" assumes the death of innocent civilians is "needed" for success in Iraq. Stem cell research is not an unfortunate accidental destruction of a human embryo in pursuit of something else. Destruction of innocent life is not the key to success in Iraq. The destruction of innocent life is critical (in your view if I understand it) to saving life. There is absolutely no reasonable comparison here.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You're not really comparing collateral damage in war to stem cell research are you? Collateral damage is not planned destruction for an end goal. Your supposition; "10,000 Iraqi's so Saddam is out of power" assumes the death of innocent civilians is "needed" for success in Iraq. Stem cell research is not an unfortunate accidental destruction of a human embryo in pursuit of something else. Destruction of innocent life is not the key to success in Iraq. The destruction of innocent life is critical (in your view if I understand it) to saving life. There is absolutely no reasonable comparison here.

I'd call it a good comparison. Destruction of life is actually impossible to avoid in Iraq to achieve the stated goal. One could say harvesting stem cells has a side-effect. It's all semantics.

The comparison is valid because people speak about life as sacred but support wars in which many innocents die. I think that's his point. Death penalty is a similar issue. Hypocritical that's all.

[Athens]

I guess the moral question should be, does the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. If a few thousand embro's are needed to create the cure to deases that kill millions, is it moral not to? After all there are no limitations of what we subject animals to for the good of man kind. Is not all living creatues god's creatures. Is it moral to subject animals to research if we are not willing to do the same to ourselfs? I think the most important thing is the end goal of any research. Is it to better and help or is it to distroy and hurt. Governments subjected humans and animals to all kinds of suffering to perfect weapons to murder. Yet when we want to do reserch to do good, its a crime.


For the sake of arugment, if the soul is from the second of conception which I dont believe in anyways, and the use of these cells are murder, dosent this soul go to heaven anyways.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Athens:
I guess the moral question should be, does the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. If a few thousand embro's are needed to create the cure to deases that kill millions, is it moral not to? After all there are no limitations of what we subject animals to for the good of man kind. Is not all living creatues god's creatures. Is it moral to subject animals to research if we are not willing to do the same to ourselfs? I think the most important thing is the end goal of any research. Is it to better and help or is it to distroy and hurt. Governments subjected humans and animals to all kinds of suffering to perfect weapons to murder. Yet when we want to do reserch to do good, its a crime.

It's a great question. How does a society measure the costs and benefits of its institutions? I've used this example before - every year 40,000 people die on this nations roads and highways. Has anybody suggested we outlaw the automobile? No, because we accept the progress and the quality of life transportation has brought to our lives. Over 10,000 die annually from handguns. Are we even close to banning them. No again, because the NRA won't let us. I guess the pro's outweigh the con's in someone's logic. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of embryos are thrown put every month at IVF clinics around the country. How come there's no outcry to stop that behavior? Now we have extremists on the right who want to stop researching what could be some of the most promising medical advances in a century, all for the sake of a few dozen undifferentiated cells in a petri dish. 'Undifferentiated' is the key word here. These aren't fetuses. There are no tissues. There are no recognizable signs of anything remotely close to being corporeal. They are simple cells. Is the chance to find therapies or cures for the millions around the world suffering from degenerative diseases worth the price of some 'undifferentiated' cells? I think so, considering the other sacrifices we make in the name of progress.

The sad thing is that it doesn't have to be this way. We're in basic research mode with stem cells. We need to research every flavor and type to learn as much as we can. Who knows that by learning everything we can about embryonic stem cells we don't find a way to use other types of SC's in the same way? There's no guarantee we will. There's only the guarantee we won't learn more if we arbitrarily stop the research all because of a small groups religious views. Makes no sense.

Opposing embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with caring about human lives. It's a political agenda about power and control.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by anti-sleep:
I'm not trying to make any point here, as I don't know nearly enough about stem cell research to try and get in an argument.

But the only argument I've heard against stem cell research is that some people see it as preventing an innocent child from being born. I can easily see why someone would have a moral objection to that, but why then do the same people not object to the innocent civilian casualties that are inevitable in every war? How does "10,000 Iraqi's so Saddam is out of power" differ from "1,000 unborn embryos so several terminal diseases are cured?" True, there is no guarantee that stem cell research will cure disease, but at the same time there is no guarantee that ousting Saddam is saving life in the end. Thoughts?

That is not the main argument. The main argument is that many believe that embryos are in fact human life, and thus we should treat them with respect. These embryos would never be born, and are bound to die in the premature state they are, but the question is: should we induce a killing by experimenting upon them? It is a very complicated ethical argument.

The point pro-life advocate make is that we should try to minimize loss of human life and not induce the killing of any individual where not necessary. In the prolifer's mind, these are human lives as valuable as yours and mine, and therefore your comparison is invalid. Would it be right to kill you to experiment on you? In the pro lifers mind, that comparison is apt.

BTW, adult stem cells have historically much more success than embryonic stem cells. Diseases are in the process of being cured from stem cells of umbilical cords, why divert funding from these successful ethically sound experiments to ethically spurious experiments on embryos, which in the in the mind of many are human life?

[Secret__Police]

First found this on the Rotten.com site.

First article

Second article



Among them is Van Golden, a Christian, anti-abortion Texan who has sold his house so that he can travel to communist, atheist China and have Huang inject a million cells from the nasal area of a foetus into his spine. According to Golden's doctors, his spine was damaged beyond repair in a car crash last Christmas. The damage to his nervous system was so bad that he has been in a wheelchair and racked by spasms ever since. But Golden refused to give up, even if it meant having to compromise his values. "This is the only place that offered us any hope," he says. "Everyone else offered only to help make me sufficient in that chair. But the chair is not my destiny. It is not ordained."
[...]
It cannot be easy for a man of his beliefs to be in China, where the government's one-child policy is partly responsible for millions of abortions each year. But instead of shunning the system, Golden believes his only hope is to embrace it. There is nowhere else he could get foetal cells. "I wish there was another way they could do it. There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US. Partial-birth ones are murder on a most terrible level. What they are doing here is a whole lot more humane.

"Four thousand a day. That's a waste. Something good should come out of something bad. The people who don't believe that aren't in a wheelchair."

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
First found this on the Rotten.com site.

First article

Second article



Among them is Van Golden, a Christian, anti-abortion Texan who has sold his house so that he can travel to communist, atheist China and have Huang inject a million cells from the nasal area of a foetus into his spine. According to Golden's doctors, his spine was damaged beyond repair in a car crash last Christmas. The damage to his nervous system was so bad that he has been in a wheelchair and racked by spasms ever since. But Golden refused to give up, even if it meant having to compromise his values. "This is the only place that offered us any hope," he says. "Everyone else offered only to help make me sufficient in that chair. But the chair is not my destiny. It is not ordained."
[...]
It cannot be easy for a man of his beliefs to be in China, where the government's one-child policy is partly responsible for millions of abortions each year. But instead of shunning the system, Golden believes his only hope is to embrace it. There is nowhere else he could get foetal cells. "I wish there was another way they could do it. There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US. Partial-birth ones are murder on a most terrible level. What they are doing here is a whole lot more humane.

"Four thousand a day. That's a waste. Something good should come out of something bad. The people who don't believe that aren't in a wheelchair."

There's nothing extraordinary about the man's actions, he's trying to save his own ass. In other words, yes, it was easy for him, he chose the "quick and dirty" way out (though, I do believe he's grasping at straws and will likely not receive much benefit from the treatment). A remarkable thing would be if he held fast to his beliefs and convictions and found an alternative.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he's a bad person for doing this, and I don't believe he's breaking any laws, but I am saying the price he pays with his conscience could very well be more than he wants to bear.